Absalom, Judas & The Pope

[John317]

"ask not for whom the bell tolls,..."

The context of Donne's beautiful phrase is death. It's also the way Ernest Hemingway used it in his great book by that title about Robert Jordan's death blowing the bridge.

[teresaq]

shane, again you are not addressing what i said but responding as if i said something altogether different. i looked to see if you might be responding to another post but i didnt see any of the keywords in the other posts that you used, whereas in my post there were those words tho not stated as you responded.

i repost my post under yours below, since, perhaps, you honestly believe i said what you appear to think i said, so that you can compare it to your response. please do so, and show me where i said what your response implies i did.

Discussing the pope's role as an anti-christ on an Adventist board is not hateful. Now, if I visited a local Catholic church and stood outside with a bull horn announcing that the papacy is the anti-christ, I think that would be a hateful thing to do.

.....

[Dr. Shane]

I normally try to address the topic and not other individuals. When other individuals go off topic, I will often ignore their off-topic remarks and try to bring the thread back on topic.

This thread is about the similarities between Absalom, Judas and the pope (or papacy). I started this thread after watching a program on 3ABN addressing this same topic.

[Dr. Shane]

shane, again you are not addressing what i said but responding as if i said something altogether different.

Try not to read too much into any given comment I make. I am just trying to participate in the free exchange of ideas. I am not trying to imply any other members have taken any specific positions on any thing.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

re: Absalom, Judas and the pope (or papacy)

All three could be said to be manipulators.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

More to the point: this thread began with the assertion that the Pope is the antichrist.

>>The papacy, is *the* anti-christ. It pretends to have good motives while in reality it is a tool of Satan. That is the topic of this thread.

[...] This is an advanced topic.<< [ed.jasd]

I propose that the above reinforces the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..., especially when tandem Peat and Repeat. Moreover, one who bears false witness is, undeniably,

a tool of Satan.

>>If one doesn't want to see anyone presenting the papal system or the pope at antichrist or the man of sin or the little-horn power, or the sea-beast of Rev. 13, it makes no sense to go to Adventist forums.<<

It is not a matter of ‘wanting’ or ‘not wanting’. It is a matter of withstanding error – a voice crying in the wilderness, as it were – which makes eminently good sense should one be concerned about verities.

>>That would be like my going to a Mormon forum and say that I don't like to see anyone talking about Joseph Smith as a prophet.<<

You don’t need to go to a Mormon forum. You negate them in ‘proper’ fashion here.

>>Or like going ot a Catholic forum and complaining about hearing about Mass being an unbloody sacrifice of Christ.<<

“unbloody sacrifice”?—so how does that square with your posits that the RCs sacrifice Jesus Christ over and over – continuously, as it were? Anyway,

you’ve not, evidently, seen their depictions of a bloody Jesus Christ. (where do you come up with these bits of trivia?—Chick Publications?)

The above said, I am here – and neither at a forum for Mormons nor at one for RCs.

>>You just have to face the fact that SDAs are convinced that the papacy is antiChrist and the little-horn power of Daniel 8.<<

And they, nevertheless, remain as wrongheaded about that – as ever. And speaking of Daniel 8 – how is it that SDAism has the gall to withstand the explicit command of Gd to Daniel – to shut up the words and seal the book – until the time of the end – when men shall..., – to go on and on about this and that, which had been sealed? Wresting, if you will.

>>To expect SDAs never to talk about it is unreasonable and will be accepted about like JWs will accept a request that they not talk about 1914.<<

Talk, but be factual – rather than wrongheaded.

>>As for your claim that it's merely an "assertion" that the papacy is antichrist and the little-horn power, etc., the evidence has been shown many times on the threads, and many books are published with overwelming evidence of it.<<

Good grief!—one does not even have to parse St John!—he wrote in a very easily understood manner! How can the honest expositor of Holy Writ ignore the plainly written Word?—unless, honesty does not factor...

>>The present discussion is not an appropriate place to rehash all this evidence.<<

“Evidence!”—say what!? Anyway, “present discussion” is doing quite nicely all by itself – without your summa cum determination, John317.

>>If you like, you could start a thread with that as the main topic.<<

Thanks, but no thanks, I’m comfortable here.

You don’t do well paying attention to other people’s post, do you? I stated earlier that, one meets error where it is laid down. That means that inasmuch as errors were advanced on this thread – it is here, this thread, that rebuttals ought to be made. That is deservedly apropos.

It distresses me that there is so much dogma and weakly constructed beliefs within the .Org of my mother. I do my small part to bring attention to them – that perhaps, the honest among y’all might stir themselves to forthrightly address such wrong turns in doctrinal construction.

You’re welcome.

>>Or better yet, search for those old threads and continue the discussions there.<<

Oh, the gentle nudge, eh? Well, hang on to your hat, bubba – I do not take a pass where egregious errors occur – rather, I attempt to withstand them (in situ, as it were).

The Pope is antiChrist. How absolutely unBiblical and silly! :-o

That is what happens when extraBiblical writings supercede Holy Writ.

(you do understand that I do sometimes post from the shoulder; that is, in clinical and straightforward fashion, yes?)

[Tom Wetmore]

I normally try to address the topic and not other individuals. When other individuals go off topic, I will often ignore their off-topic remarks and try to bring the thread back on topic.

This thread is about the similarities between Absalom, Judas and the pope (or papacy). I started this thread after watching a program on 3ABN addressing this same topic.

You have hit upon the reason this topic has so quickly been sidetracked from what you intended. Your two paragraphs are distinctly parallel. Just as you see merit in not distracting from the subject by getting personal in posted comments, a similar problem develops when we seek to focus our attention on a particular person or group as personifying the characteristic labeled as being "anti-christ". It detracts from and makes us lose sight of the subject, the important principle - what it really means to be and act the part of an anti-christ. It personalizes it. By naming the pope, papacy or catholicism, those that identify in any way with any of those will take it personally. And it become an us against them fight.

[Tom Wetmore]

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

(For a good summary of what Pogo's creator meant read - http://www.igopogo.com/final_authority.htm )

The relevance of this is the approach I took in teaching the significance of those prophetic symbols of John the Revelator. When the beasts - impostors, the usurpers, the men of sin - are illustrated I tried to teach an appreciation of the character flaws that were symbolized. An appreciation of the profound Truth therein results in a deep sense of shame at how often we ourselves act the part of the anti-christ living in blasphemy of the Lamb, our lives showing a clear loyalty of worship of any god but the True One, and by force of our words and actions impose our false gospel on others.

Woe is me! For indeed we have met the enemy and he is us.

Only those that keep their focus on the Lamb and follow him wherever he goes are among those that fall on their faces exclaiming, "Worthy is the Lamb."

[Tom Wetmore]

This theological discussion isn't about me. This discussion is about how various anti-christs have come from within the circle of believers or professed believers. We need to fear those preaching a false gospel more than we fear those that are not preaching any gospel at all.

No, what we need to fear most are those that live a false gospel or no gospel at all. And it is about you, and me. The inner circle in question is the circle with its center within our own heart. If we do not take the message personally we miss the point.

[John317]

What you say here is all true, Tom, but the real purpose of the prophecy is to give God's people insight into the events of the last days and to identify the forces of evil. The reason it's essential to know who those forces are is in order to leave them alone and escape God's judgment in seven last plagues. That's the context of Rev. 13 to 20.

It's unrealistic for us to think that whenever we teach the prophetic truths about these topics, everyone is going to be immediately receptive. Of course the truth is going to be resisted, and sometimes resisted strongly, even violently. But God still wants the truth about the identity of the antichrist taught in order to warn His honest people who are in Babylon to get out. That's why the prophecies identify the historical figures and the religious organizations as they do, in order for people to see the dangers of the false doctrines and not become involved in them but to turn to the truth as it is in Jesus.

Let's not forget that every year there are thousands of people in the fallen churches who leave them when they hear and understand the prophecies. There are still millions more who need to hear the message, but they won't hear it if we stop giving it and instead spiritualize the prophecies so that they don't clearly identify the issues and actors in the great controversy.

[Kevin H]

I am uncomfortable with grouping Absalom with Judas and the Papacy. I don't want to go into the papacy in this post (a little more later) but Judas was only self centered, who was interested in spiritual things but who's focus was on how the kingdom of God would benefit him. (was he outright stealing from the money box, or was he leaving IOUs just borrowing to pay back with the overwhelming wealth of being the treasurer of the greatest empire the world has ever seen).

We automatically make Absalom a villain because he opposed our hero David. But many of us would love Absalom. Absalom believed that his father's government had compromised too much with the pagans and that his dad had become so rich and powerful and having his yes men around him that David had become so isolated from the people that he lost touch with how to do his job. In short Absalom believed that his dad had apostasies even worst than Saul did. Absalom wanted to reform Judah and Israel from his dad's apostasy and wanted to return to the prophetic blue print. Now I know some of you would bring up his sleeping with his father's concubines, however when Absalom lived an act like that would not have yet been understood as adultery. It would have been understood as that the Lord has replaced the person with this other person. (there is evidence that David might have had a similar event).

The war of Absalom and David, the bulk of the followers of Absalom were the old time faithful Hebrews and the bulk of David's followers were the pagan's who were converted under David and liberals.

Absalom was probably more in the right than David was. His problem is that he had assumed that this father had apostatized and committed the unpardonable sin. He assumed that God had given up on David and that God had raised him up to return the nation to God. The problem was that despite his faults, David was still inside himself trying to go after God's heart, and God is not going to give up on the weakest of his followers. Our understanding of Absalom would be so different if only he was waiting for God's leading instead of assuming that God had given up on his dad and that he needed to force reformation on these pagan converts and the rest of the country right now!!!!

We can learn about ourselves looking that the time of David. Absalom was the conservative, Joab was the liberal.

[teresaq]

amen tom!

far too often in our church, and universally, it is so much easier too focus on others and where they err, than it is to search our own hearts and see wherein we do err.

we are even discouraged from seeing where we might be like absalom, judas or the papacy.

i remember reading the chapter on judas in the desire of ages and seeing parts that were like me. i shared that with a church-goer who was aghast, to say the least. should i have read that chapter as all about him without searching my own heart to see where i, also, am like that? then what was the purpose of the chapter?

no, if i recognize and surrender those ugly traits to the Lord then i am much better off...both in this life and have a chance for the eternal life.

i face myself now----or i will face myself judgment day.

[teresaq]

far too many of us, and those coming in, are more about belonging to the right church, than about belonging to the right God.

we should remember, the vast majority of us will leave when the sunday law comes. those of us who are well-grounded in the prophecies, but know little of the Lord, or have a wrong view of Him, will be the ones leaving.

[Tom Wetmore]

But taking this full circle back to the original point, being "out of Babylon" is not an assurance that none in the fold, including each one of us, is exempt from being told most pointedly by the Lamb, "I never knew you." And He will say that to some who claim to have preached prophetically even in His name.

The risk of dogmatic identification of precisely and singularly who the anti-christ is, or the beast, or getting out of Babylon is that we rest in the "assurance" that we are OK because we are not one of them. We forget to exercise the necessary self-examination that causes the Babylon within us to fall away. We forget that self, the big "I", is the real anti-Christ.

I am not trying to question or cast doubt on our traditional interpretation of the prophecies and their fore-telling of the future. I am seeking to keep a focus on their spiritual meaning and real purpose to change hearts, not just denominations. Knowing the anti-christ(s) does nothing to save me. Knowing the Christ does save me.

[John317]

But taking this full circle back to the original point, being "out of Babylon" is not an assurance that none in the fold, including each one of us, is exempt from being told most pointedly by the Lamb, "I never knew you." And He will say that to some who claim to have preached prophetically even in His name.

There's no question that there are SDAs in the SDA church who are really in Babylon in the sense that they are partaking of the thinking and practices of Babylon. Many SDAs are adopting Babyloniish lifestyles and ideas and concepts, even some of the theological concepts of Babylon. Ellen White speaks of SDAs whose compromises with truth will result in their eventually joining Babylon. Joe Crews wrote about it in his very excellent book, Creeping Compromise.

So I am saying you are right when you talk about the importance of understanding how we may be like the very organizations and people we condemn. But we can't really know those things are dangerous unless we understand correctly who and what constitutes Babylon, and how it is different from the truth as it is in Jesus.

[Guest]

Amen!

[Guest]

Looks like Absalom changed his name.

[John317]

... I am seeking to keep a focus on their spiritual meaning and real purpose to change hearts, not just denominations. Knowing the anti-christ(s) does nothing to save me. Knowing the Christ does save me.

But there is just a small step between that position and the idea that it doesn't matter if people know who the antichrist or little horn power is. The idea that it doesn't matter or that we don't even know the identity of the antichrist is very common, even among some SDAs today.

But for people who are now following the antichrist and the little-horn power, it can mean the difference between life and death whether they understand the true gospel. Over a billion people believe they are following Christ while they are actually following a different leader and are dedicated to doctrines of devils. We dare not forget that. If we do, we can't do the work that God raised up our church to do.

Knowing Christ does indeed save you, but because your beliefs aren't mixed with a great deal of error. However, you can't say that about people whose knowledge of Christ is mixed together with beliefs that keep them from knowing God's will for their lives. Many of those people are taught that God wants them to crawl on their hands and knees on some pilgramage in order to answer their prayers. Or light candles to the saints. Or pay priests for prayers for their dead loved ones. These are theories to a lot of SDAs but they are very practical and real to tens of millions of people in the fallen churches.

[John317]

So Absolem is the good guy now?

Isn't that sometimes known as deconstructionism, or rewriting history?

These concepts are being introduced into the church today, which leaves a lot of people feeling that there is no sure foundation but everything is fluid. That's actually the intention of the philosophy of deconstructionism:

Quote:

Deconstruction is an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded - showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. It is an approach that may be deployed in philosophy, literary analysis, or other fields.

Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. Derrida refers to this point as an aporia in the text, and terms deconstructive reading "aporetic." J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."

I studied deconstructionism in graduate school at Humboldt University. It's fascinating and you can have a lot of fun with texts by using it, but I didn't think it would begin to influence Adventist thinking about their history or about the Bible. By using it, one can turn the values in a text on their head. Good become evil and evil good. Langauge is sure tricky.

[teresaq]

i also firmly believe that the papcy, babylon, is as our church, and past reformers, believed it to be.

i think that the main point of God in presenting babylon and identifying it, is to point out two different mindsets, two different mentalities first and foremost with everything else we identify as from babylon falling under that...the past reformers only seemed to see how it was wrong for babylon to exercise force and control, but felt it ok to exercise force and control themselves--because they were in the right.

when daniel interpreted the dream to the king of the original babylon his advice, counsel, was

Dan 4:27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

we dont see anything here about doctrines, or belonging to the right church---and please do not misunderstand, i do believe the sda church to be the remnant church-but we do see neb being advised to care for, and about, others.

the bible, from start to finish, presents two different mentalities, two different ways of being...

why is the state-of-the-dead, for example, so important? because of how it portrays God most importantly. what is the "wine" of babylon? isnt it mostly about manipulation, force, control, me first, you last? when babylon falls rev 18 goes into great description of the loss of money and the control of everything and everyone to have that money.

(we can leave babylon and its doctrines, follow the health message, leave off jewelry, yada, yada--but still have the heart of babylon)

[John317]

...(we can leave babylon and its doctrines, follow the health message, leave off jewelry, yada, yada--but still have the heart of babylon)

Yes, very true. It is like some people have said, you can take people out of the jungle fairly easily but it's a lot harder to take the jungle out of people.

We could change that slightly to: "It's easy to take people out of Babylon, but it's much harder to take Babylon completely out of people."

[John317]

why is the state-of-the-dead, for example, so important? because of how it portrays God most importantly.

That's right. Also because if the dead are already either in heaven or hell, there's no reason for the Investigative Judgment. It become totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

[teresaq]

how would you say that is important to showing the difference between Christ and satan/babylon?

[Kevin H]

No John, there is no disconstruction in this. It is simply that the text is teaching us about ourselves; how God's people are relating to each other. We love to read more into the text than the text says. I see Absalom as no more wicked than the more conservatives here; or only as wicked as the conservaties here.

Absalom wanted to return to the prophetic blueprint. His followers were the good conservative Hebrews, the genetic decendents of those who came out of Egypt; who were raised in the faith, who had studied the truth and knew it. While some of these followed David, most of David's supporters in this war were the new converts from paganism; traditional enemies to God's people.

Study it out for yourself. David refused to take the ark with him realizing that this was just a dissagreement over the application of the truth and that Absalom had as much right to the ark as he did. Absalom's mistake was wanting to move faster than God, wanting to pluck out the tares before letting them ripen to see for sure which is wheat or tares, and jumping to the conclusion that his dad had apostisised.

[teresaq]

that is a uniques understanding, kevin, and will take some time to pray, think about...

david hadnt done anything about amnon raping absaloms sister, even tho they were all his children. but that is a hard position for any parent to be in...we should learn the lesson but do away with the judging...

the sops comments,

The evil results of David's unjust indulgence toward Amnon were not ended, for it was here that Absalom's alienation from his father began. After he fled to Geshur, David, feeling that the crime of his son demanded some punishment, refused him permission to return. And this had a tendency to increase rather than to lessen the inextricable evils in which the king had come to be involved. Absalom, energetic, ambitious, and unprincipled, shut out by his exile from participation in the affairs of the kingdom, soon gave himself up to dangerous scheming. {PP 728.2}

it seems God did not put all the blame on absalom...